COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NAVDEEP INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

ITR/151/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022474199519 January 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (the revenue) against Navdeep Investments Pvt Ltd (the assessee) for the Assessment Year 1984-85. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the assessee's eligibility for relief under Section 80-M. The High Court heard the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. Despite being served, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. The High Court noted that a similar question had been decided by it on the same date in another reference involving the same parties.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by an order of even date in a similar reference (Income Tax Reference No.88 of 1995), had already decided the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, for the reasons stated in that prior order, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee. The principle established is that relief under Section 80-M is to be granted on the basis of gross dividend, even when interest paid is deductible in computing business income. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. No specific operative directions like deletion or remand were mentioned, as the question was answered on a point of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was entitled to grant of relief under Section 80-M on the basis of gross dividend, since the amount of interest paid was absolutely deductible in computing the income from business? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 80-M). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned Standing Counsel, argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing relief under Section 80-M based on gross dividend, considering the deductibility of interest paid in computing business income. The revenue's specific arguments and any authorities relied upon are not detailed in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80-M

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/151/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 151 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus NAVDEEP INVESTMENTS PVT LTD - Respondent(s) ================================================ Appearance : MR TANVISH U BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ===============================================

ITR/151/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 19/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tri

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →